Distribution of surplus proceeds after a tax foreclosure sale; Whether a foreclosing governmental unit (FGU) is entitled to attorney fees & costs incurred for postsale proceedings; MCL 211.78m & 211.78t; “Remaining proceeds”; MCL 211.78t(12); “Minimum bid”; MCL 211.78m(16); Use of proceeds as authorized by MCL 211.78m(8)(b); Documentary evidence establishing an interest under MCL 211.78t(8) & (9); Harmless error; Applicability of MCL 211.78t(6); Burden to prove interest in the remaining proceeds; Unjust enrichment; Rafaeli, LLC v Oakland Cnty; In re Petition of Chippewa Cnty Treasurer for Foreclosure; Personal representative (PR)

In an issue of first impression, the court held that MCL 211.78m and 211.78t “do not allow an FGU to recover attorney fees and costs incurred for litigating issues involving the disbursement of remaining proceeds.” And it found no reversible error in the trial court’s disbursement of the proceeds here. Petitioner-county treasurer argued that “claimants’ failure to strictly comply with the substantive and disclosure requirements of MCL 211.78t precluded their recovery of remaining proceeds and that petitioner was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs incurred for postsale proceedings.” As to the attorney fees and costs issue, the court concluded that, “read in harmony, the definition of ‘remaining proceeds’ in MCL 211.78t(12), and the definition of ‘minimum bid’ in MCL 211.78m(16), expressly allow an FGU to deduct expenses that could have been included in the minimum bid from the remaining proceeds. However, these statutes do not authorize an FGU to recover legal expenses incurred in litigation related to the disbursement of remaining proceeds.” As to the disbursements here, the court declined “to address petitioner’s unpreserved argument that a claimant forfeits his or her right to recover remaining proceeds by failing to comply with all substantive and disclosure requirements in MCL 211.78t.” As to the disbursement of remaining proceeds to claimant-Estate, to the extent the trial court erred by granting its “motion to disburse before being presented with the letters of authority, the error was harmless because the trial court’s judicial notice of the probate case file revealed that [the PR] was authorized to act on the Estate’s behalf.” As to the disbursement to claimants-Joneses, the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred by impliedly finding that the Joneses met their burden to prove their interest in the remaining proceeds.” And petitioner did not show that the disbursement of remaining proceeds to them amounted “to unjust enrichment under MCL 211.78t(9)[.]”